Abhisit took power in a morally dubious way
Play
Re: In defence of Abhisit, Letters, February 27
To say that Egon’s letter had me in paroxysms of laughter would be an exaggeration, but only a slight one. How on earth does he come to the conclusion that Mr Abhisit is the most decent politician in recent history? And indeed how does he define recent history? On what precise criteria does he base this claim? There have, I am sure, been any number of decent politicians in Thailand in the last 10, 20 or 30 years, alongside the crooks and charlatans.
Egon rightly points out that Mr Abhisit was forced into a coalition with some unsavoury characters, but in making this statement he undermines his own argument. The background to this dodgy but apparently constitutionally legitimate deal is well known. However, if Mr Abhisit is such a decent politician, why did he capitulate to pressure from certain powerful groups to team up with these people? That surely represents a lack of moral fibre and integrity. If he had these qualities he would have baulked at the shoddiness of the deal, and instead proposed that a general election be held, in accordance with democratic principles.
Robin Grant
